Wanheng Li

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗔𝗜 𝗰𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿 $𝟲𝟬𝟬 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. Our VP of Engineering, Xiaofan(James) Luan, was supposed to buy his wife a Dior bag for their anniversary.  Instead, he bought three Claude Code subscriptions and spent the holiday trying to cross-compile 2 million lines of C++. Every fix on one platform broke two others.  $600 later, the only output was "git reset --hard" — and a very cold dinner table.😂 "Make it compile on Windows" is a trap. The real goal was "compile everywhere without hacks" — no AI is going to figure that out for you at 2 am. What worked: constraints before code, review tests not code, bottom-up, one layer at a time. Same task, two days. Then he ran six parallel Claude sessions across three machines with git worktree. The bottleneck stopped being intelligence and started being how fast one person can alt-tab. AI solves exactly the problem you give it. Engineering is in knowing which one to give. His wife is still waiting for that bag. Full story: https://lnkd.in/gtsW_Wvk ——— Follow Milvus, created by Zilliz, for everything related to unstructured data

9

Hear from Fei W., a software engineering manager behind real-time live translation for Ray-Ban Meta glasses as he shares insight about its impact on the future of AI wearables. https://bit.ly/3GFsvkK #LifeAtMeta #MetaCareers #wearables #AI

1

Huge thanks to Zhe Jia, Shuai Wang, Aditi Bamba, and Martin Wang from DoorDash for publishing this incredibly practical breakdown of their RAG implementation for Dasher support. This post saved me countless hours of trial and error. The two-tier guardrail approach is what really clicked for me: * Run a cheap semantic similarity check first (sliding window comparison between response and KB articles) * Only if that fails, escalate to the full LLM evaluator Result: 90% fewer hallucinations, 99% fewer compliance issues, without killing your latency budget When you're actually shipping RAG to users, this kind of practical filtering makes all the difference. Everyone talks about prompt engineering, but nobody talks enough about how to catch bad outputs before users see them. Their broader setup—quality monitoring across 5 dimensions, regression test suites, the whole LLM Judge framework—gives you a real blueprint beyond the basic tutorials. You can't fix what you're not measuring. The article is https://lnkd.in/dbC9BG7a

2

Why does an E3 level SWE at Meta make only ~190k/year, while an E8 level engineer makes over ~$2M/year, even though both engineers are ICs and spend the same time at work? I have spent the last 5 years at Meta as an IC. I joined with a little over 15 years of experience, and I’ve worked with many solid engineers in this time. Here is how I think about that compensation jump. 1. Same hours, completely different “unit of work” An E3’s unit of work is usually a task or a ticket. An E8’s unit of work is a multi year problem for the company. E3: “Implement this service, fix this bug, write this feature.” E8: “How do we cut infra cost by 20 percent across this product” or “How do we make this platform safe to scale to 10x users.” One person is paid to execute. The other is paid to decide what is worth executing in the first place. 2. Radius of impact E3 usually impacts a file, a service, maybe a small team. E8 shapes whole orgs and product lines. If an E3 ships something great, the impact is great but local. If an E8 ships the right platform, hundreds of engineers become faster and the company saves or earns millions every year. Comp tracks the area of the circle you influence. 3. Risk and downside protection At junior levels, mistakes are usually contained and reversible. At senior staff levels, a bad call can burn tens of millions or damage the brand. E8s are paid for judgment under ambiguity. They decide which bets the company should not make, which migrations can wait, which “shiny idea” is going to kill reliability. You pay more to people whose good judgment protects you from very expensive failures.  4. They scale themselves This can happen in a few ways. 1. Delegation with ownership They define the shape of the problem, then hand large pieces to other senior and mid level engineers while keeping the bar and direction clear. 2. Knowledge that travels They write RFCs, public comments, FAQs, wikis, internal posts. One answer helps hundreds of people who will face the same issue next quarter. 3. Tools over heroics Instead of unblocking people manually all day, they build tools, libraries or guardrails so others can unblock themselves. One well designed tool can save thousands of engineering hours every year. This is what “scaling yourself” actually looks like. The company pays for that multiplier.  5. Ownership of the “uncomfortable problems” Junior engineers usually work inside a well defined box. E8s take ownership between the boxes. They pick up problems that:  Span many teams and no one really “owns”  Require aligning leaders who disagree  Have product, infra, legal and security angles at the same time Most people avoid those because they are messy, political and slow. Very senior ICs lean into them. That is where a lot of value sits. Continued ↓

201

15 Comments